Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alex Lamota Marti v. M. A. Baires

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 26, 2013

ALEX LAMOTA MARTI,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. A. BAIRES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheila K. Oberto United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENAS DUCES TECUM AND FOR THIRTY-DAY EXTENSION TO FILE JOINT STATEMENT FOLLOWING PRODUCTION BY THIRD PARTIES CDCR AND CSATF (Doc. 88) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR FURTHER ORDER AS MOOT (Doc. 86)

Plaintiff Alex Lamota Marti, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on May 9, 2008. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint against Defendants Baires, Garza, and Knight for retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On June 5, 2012, the Court issued an extensive order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motions to compel and to determine the sufficiency of responses. In relevant part, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer within thirty days regarding Plaintiff's requests for the production of documents, and to file a joint statement in compliance with Local Rule 251(c) within forty-five days if they were unable to resolve their differences. Subsequently, the Court has granted the parties additional time to continue meeting and conferring in an effort to resolve their remaining discovery disputes.

On December 11, 2012, the parties filed a joint statement setting forth the remaining issues, which are not in dispute but which require the production of documents and a tangible item from third parties. The Court notes for the record that since the issuance of the order on June 5, 2012, the parties have worked diligently and in good faith toward resolving their discovery disputes and they are to be commended.

Pursuant to the joint statement, Plaintiff requests that the Court issue subpoenas duces tecum directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (CSATF) to produce certain documents and Plaintiff's clock radio. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. These items are not in the possession, custody, or control of Defendants, and Defendants do not object to the issuance of the subpoenas. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), 45. The parties represent that production of these documents and tangible item, if they exist, will likely resolve any outstanding discovery disputes. The parties additionally request that they be permitted to file a joint statement of disagreements, if any, within thirty days after production by CDCR and/or CSTAF.

Plaintiff's request for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum is granted, and the parties' request for a thirty-day deadline to file a joint statement of disagreements following production is granted.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(1), this order serves as notice to the parties that the United States Marshal will be directed to initiate service of the subpoenas following the passage of fifteen days from the date of service of this order.*fn1

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum, set forth in the joint statement filed on December 11, 2012, is GRANTED;

2. The issuance of subpoenas duces tecum directing the Custodians of Records for CDCR and CSATF to produce responsive documents and a tangible item is authorized;

3. Pursuant to Rule 45(b)(1), the parties are placed on notice that the subpoenas duces tecum will be issued after fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order;

4. The parties' request for a thirty-day deadline to file a joint statement of disagreements, if any, following production by third parties CDCR and CSATF is GRANTED; and

5. Plaintiff's motion for a further order, filed on December 6, 2012, is DENIED as moot in light of the parties' subsequently-filed joint statement and request for the issuance of subpoenas duces tecum.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.